Rationalistic, technical curriculum making has become the dominant planning model in American education. The basic tenets of technical planning are proferred by May and the problems with rationalis tic processes are highlighted. The author asserts that adopting in teacher education "what is done" in school-based cur riculum design superimposes a technical method, even though alternative, legiti mate, and creative open-ended methods exist for teacher planning. Teacher educa tors should examine those alternatives and explore with prospective teachers the problems associated with Tyler's linear ap proach to planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
2.
Bobbitt, F. (1924). How to make a curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
3.
Borko, H., & Shavelson, R. (1983). Speculations on teacher education: Recommendations from research on teachers' cognitions. Journal of Education for Teaching, 9 (3), 210-224.
4.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. New York: Nichols Publishing.
5.
Charters, W.W. ( 1923). Curriculum construction. New York: Macmillan.
6.
Clark, C., & Lampert, M. (1986). The study of teacher thinking: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (5), 27-31.
7.
Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
8.
Clark, C., Smith, R., Newby, T., & Cook, V. (1985). Perceived origins of teaching behavior. Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (6), 49-53.
9.
Davidman, L. (1981). The use of creative teaching sequences in pre-service teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 32 (6), 22-24.
10.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath.
11.
Duffy, G. (1982). Fighting off the alligators: What research in real classrooms has to say about reading instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14 (4), 357-374.
12.
Duffy, G., & Roehler, L. (1986). Constraints on teacher change. Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (1), 55-58.
13.
Eggleston, (1977). The sociology of the school curriculum. Boston : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
14.
Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan.
15.
Feiman, S. (1979). Technique and inquiry in teacher education: A curricular case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 9 (1), 63-79.
16.
Fuller, F., & Bown, O. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher Education (pp. 25-52). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
17.
Gagné, R.M. (1970). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
18.
Gay, G. ( 1980). Conceptual models of the curriculum-planning process. Considered Action for Curriculum Improvement (pp. 128-143). Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19.
Gibbons, J.A. (1979). Curriculum integration. Curriculum Inquiry, 9 (4), 321-332.
20.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
Goodman, J. (1986). Teaching preservice teachers a critical approach to curriculum design: A descriptive account. Curriculum Inquiry , 16 (2), 179-201.
22.
Harrow, A. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain. New York: McKay.
23.
Hoste, R. (1982). Sources of influence on teaching practice in the evaluation of courses in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 8 (3), 252-261.
24.
Joyce, B.R., & Harootunian, B. (1964). Teaching as problem solving . Journal of Teacher Education, 15, 420-427.
25.
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B., & Masia, B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: McKay .
26.
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55, 178-194.
27.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1984). Teachers, their world and their work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
28.
Neale, D.C., Pace, A.J., & Case, A.B. (1983, April). The influence of training, experience, and organizational environment on teachers' use of the systematic planning model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal .
29.
Neely, A. (1985). Teacher planning: Where has it been? Where is it now? Where is it going?Action in Teacher Education, 7 (3), 25-29.
30.
Peterson, P.L., Marx, R.W., & Clark, C.M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 417-432.
Rosales-Dordelly, C., & Short, E. (1985). Curriculum professors' specialized knowledge. State College, PA: Nittany Press.
33.
Schubert, W. (1986). Gurriculum perspective, paradigm, and possibility . New York: Macmillan.
34.
Short, E. (1983). The forms and use of alternative curriculum development strategies: Policy implications. Curriculum Inquiry, 13 (1), 43-64.
35.
Toomey, R. (1977). Teachers' approaches to curriculum planning. Curriculum Inquiry, 7 (2), 121-129.
36.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Wagner, A. (1984). Conflicts in consciousness: Imperative cognitions can lead to knots in thinking. In R. Halkes and J. Olson (Eds.), Teacher thinking: A new perspective on (persistent problems in) education (pp. 163-175). Heirewig, Holland: Sweets Publishing Service .
38.
Yinger, R. (1977). A study of teacher planning: Description and theory development using ethnographic and information processing methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
39.
Zahorik, J. (1970). The effect of planning on teaching. Elementary School Journal, 3, 143-151.
40.
Zeichner, K. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34 (3), 3-9.
